FIELD Jarryd Ultimate strength of FPSOs

Ultimate strength of FPSOs

Jarryd Field
Australian Maritime College
jarrydf.00@gmail.com
Abstract
Methods to reliably estimate the ultimate strength behaviour of FPSOs were investigated, with
two methods selected for their speed and greatly reduced computational cost and complexity
compared to numerical solutions. Load-shortening curves of stiffened and unstiffened panels were
investigated, including commentary on hard elements and the effect of imperfections. Two programs
were written in MATLAB and validated wherever possible against results available in the open
literature. Results show that the behaviour of validation cases is similar as what is predicted although
imperfections and hard corners were not accounted for. Future recommendations reflect these
observations.
Keywords: Ultimate strength, FPSO, load shortening curve, moment curvature curve
Supervisor: Dr. Roberto Ojeda

Introduction

A common offshore structure in the oil and gas industry is the Floating Production Storage
Offloading (FPSO) structure. FPSOs, as defined by Chakrabati, are ship shaped floaters [floating
structures] with provisions for storing and offloading of oil simultaneously (2005). FPSOs can be
considered to be in a quasi-static condition for two reasons. Firstly, FPSOs are able to weathervane
about its turret mooring, thus avoiding any large motions applied to the hull girder. Secondly, most
FPSOs have a detachable turret mooring, which allows the FPSO to detach and move to shelter if
unfavourable conditions present.
As the FPSO will be in a quasi-static condition, the ultimate strength of the hull girder becomes a
possible mode of failure. The ultimate strength of a floating structure is the maximum moment its hull
girder can sustain before collapse. This relationship can be plotted as a moment-curvature curve,
which shows the moment sustained by a hull for a corresponding curvature. A typical momentcurvature curve is shown in Figure 1.
The first attempts to determine the ultimate strength of a hull were investigated by Caldwell
(1965). In his paper, Caldwell developed the first method of estimating the ultimate longitudinal
strength of a vessel, firstly by considering yielding only for a cross section, then considering buckling
by introducing a buckling factor.
Caldwells work is of particular note as it is the seminal work for ultimate longitudinal strength of
vessels, and the method he proposed was simple and easy to implement. Caldwell made three
assumptions to reduce the complexity of the problem, the first being that plates that buckle will do so
uniformly, not non-uniformly as would be expected from a buckling plate failure. The second
assumption was that Caldwell used a ratio of the ultimate buckling strength to the ultimate yield
strength of the panel since at the time there were no methods to approximate the ultimate moment of
each panel. The third assumption is that there are only 4 panels present, one each for the upper and
lower decks, and two for the sides. These assumptions reduce the complexity of the problem
substantially.
Caldwells method is flawed however, and the issues stem from the assumptions made. Again,
Caldwell had no way of calculating the buckling load of plates, hence these simplifications made an
analysis possible, but methods have since been developed to address this. Also, reducing the problem
to four large panels may have reduced the complexity substantially, but does not represent the
behaviour of individual panels.

FIELD Jarryd Ultimate strength of FPSOs

Smith (1977) developed a method to determine the moment-curvature relationship for a hull. In his
method, curvature is incrementally applied to the hull girder about the instantaneous neutral axis, and
by utilising the load-shortening curve for each panel, incremental stresses for each panel are found.
After this, the individual panel stresses are integrated over the cross section to find the incremental
bending moments applied.

Pre collapse
Elastic response

Post collapse
Residual strength

Figure 1 Typical moment curvature relationship for a hull girder

Finite element analysis can be used to determine the ultimate strength, however the
aforementioned method Smith proposed is less computationally demanding than a full model and
simulation, and requires less time and technical knowledge to set up. If licencing costs for FEA
packages are considered, Smiths method is a viable alternative for ultimate strength calculations and
can be used by users with minimal experience with FEA. Hughes proposed a similar method in 1983
which is derived from Smiths method. His reasoning for this was that for simple design calculations
the moment-curvature response would be unnecessary - a simple estimate of failure strength is
satisfactory, stating that the method is a simpler design-orientated method which requires much less
computation (1983). This method removes the requirement for a full load shortening curve, instead
representing each panel with an ultimate strain.
Load-shortening curves are the relationship between a compressive load applied on a panel vs.
the shortening sustained by the panel. Typically, panels show a linear relationship between load and
shortening up until buckling occurs at an ultimate strain, after which the panel is compromised but
may exert residual strength, this is shown in Figure 2 below. These curves have been found in a
number of ways previously.

FIELD Jarryd Ultimate strength of FPSOs

Figure 2 Typical panel load-shortening curve

The weaknesses in Caldwells method were addressed by Smith for both the local plate yielding
problem and the global ultimate load problem. In his paper, Smith identifies that ship design had been
limited to only considering the maximum yield stress of the plate material without any explicit
consideration of the complex structural processes, including inelastic buckling and post buckling
behaviour. With satisfactory load-shortening curves, this limitation of Caldwells method is
eliminated.
The curves that Smith presented however, were not representative of any particular panel, instead
they were derived from theoretical data. Smith presented a number of these curves for different levels
of residual stress and plate aspect ratios. It is not mentioned if stiffeners were present, however.
Others, such as Gordo and Guedes Soares (1996) or Hu (2001) have developed analytical models to
represent the load-shortening behaviour of a panel including stiffeners with varying success. Finally,
non-linear finite element methods have been used by some, such as Paik, to create load shortening
curves. While this method is considered the most accurate, its viability is lessened by complicated
model set-up, long solution times and expensive software.
Hughes, alongside his proposal to use an alternative method to calculate the ultimate strength of a
hull, also described both a method for calculating the ultimate strain of a panel. The fundamental
difference is that the method for individual plates only calculates one value, the yield strain of the
plate at failure, not a complete load-average strain curve. The method calculates the ultimate strain at
failure for three modes of failure; stiffener failure in compression (including tripping), plate failure in
compression and simultaneous failure of plate in tension and stiffener in tension. Both Smiths
method and Hughes method were implemented in this investigation to assess their viability to
calculate ultimate strength of an FPSO.

Methodology

Smiths method was implemented in MATLAB following the method Chen (2008) presents.
Chens implementation was selected as it presents the most comprehensive analysis of Smiths
method out of literature reviewed. The program itself can detect the curvature applied to cause a panel
to fail and presents a list of all panels with corresponding failure curvatures upon completion. The
program also tracks and exports the shift in the neutral axis as well as the moment-curvature
relationship.
The program is broken into a number of subroutines. The primary program, SmithsMethod.m,
controls assignments of curvature and zero matrices neutral axis and moment, reads the database with
panel information, initiates the neutral axis solver for hogging and sagging independently then finally

FIELD Jarryd Ultimate strength of FPSOs

plots and post processes data. The position of the neutral axis for each respective curvature is solved
by the subroutine subInstantZNA.m, which solves using the procedure outlined by Chen (2008).
subInstantZNA.m is represented in Figure 3 between calculating strain for each panel and exiting
when the cross section force is within tolerance. In addition to this, the subroutine initiates another
subroutine, subLoadStrainCurveInterpreter.m. This subroutine reads and interprets a load-shortening
curve, as well as the corresponding curve representing a panels behaviour in tension. This subroutine
will use linear interpolation to find a value between two points if required, therefore load-shortening
curves require sufficient definition for accurate results. Additionally, this subroutine will track any
instance a panel will exceed its maximum strength and record the curvature this occurs at. This
subroutine is shown in Figure 3 when the program finds the cross section load. Another two
subroutines are used by the main program, these are subPanelVertCoord.m and subPlateFailPost.m.
subPanelVertCoord.m, imports database data, provides weighted averages where necessary and most
importantly solves the initial location of the neutral axis. If additional elements for a panel are
required, this subroutine can be modified easily to incorporate its effects. subPlateFailPost.m assesses
the list of instances where panels have failed and post-processes them into a concise list, with the
earliest failure curvature shown. This subroutine also exports the list as an excel document. A basic
flowchart of this functionality is shown in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3 Flowchart of Smiths method program

The implementation of Hughes method calculated each iterations failure curvature based on the
panel with the weakest ultimate strain. Then each panel was checked to determine if it too failed at the
applied curvature. Each panel that fails at this curvature is also removed. Finally, the hull completely
fails when no panels remain in the cross section, through either of the above processes. The procedure
implemented in MATLAB follows the above process and records panel failure strength with
corresponding curvature. This procedure is broken into a number of subroutines. The main program,
Method.m, controls assignments of variables and the majority of calculations. subLoaddb.m controls
the import of the database and divides the database into two, a database of panel properties and a list
of panel directories. subPlatedelete.m is invoked when a panel has failed and needs to be removed
from the database. The subroutine distinguishes between a step initial failure due to curvature and a
failure caused by excessive strain. subZNAsolver.m solves the height of the neutral axis, while
subFlexstiff.m solves the flexural stiffness of all panels in the cross section. A flowchart of the
program is shown in Figure 4.

FIELD Jarryd Ultimate strength of FPSOs

Figure 4 Flowchart of Hughes ultimate strength program.

The MATLAB program for Hughes ultimate panel strength method considers all failure modes
and then selects the appropriate failure mode with the smallest ultimate strain. While at first it may
seem the calculation of just the ultimate strain with this method is less advantageous than calculating
a full load-shortening curve, Hughes method also includes allowances for residual stresses, initial
deflections, imposed bending moments, transverse stresses and geometrical allowances for barges,
giving versatility to the method beyond that of load-shortening curves produced by Gordos method.
The program is split into a number of subroutines. The main program is run through the file
calculator.m, which controls the execution of each failure mode subroutine. subMode1.m,
subMode2.m and subMode3.m solve for all three modes of failure that Hughes specified. A separate
subroutine, subTripping.m, solves for tripping failure stress in conjunction with mode 1, while
subPlasMom.m solves for the plastic moment where required. The structure of the program is outlined
in Figure 5.

Figure 5 Flowchart of Hughes ultimate panel strength program.

Gordo and Guedes Soares method (1993) was investigated and load-shortening curves generated
via their method showed a reasonable correlation between experimental and analytical results. The
method implemented considered beam-column buckling and tripping, however residual stresses were
not implemented.

FIELD Jarryd Ultimate strength of FPSOs

The program is divided into four parts. The main file, LSCurves.m, simply checks if the database
is present, loads the database if it is, then initiates a loop to solve for all panels. The subroutine
subGordo.m solves each panels load-shortening curve for beam-column failure, then accounts for
tripping, if it occurs. The subroutine subLoader.m imports the database, while subHardCorners.m
implements a load-shortening curve for the hard corner condition. In the current implementation, hard
corners are considered as elastic-perfectly plastic.

Figure 6 Flowchart of Gordos method for generating load-shortening curves

2.1

Panel Imperfections

Ship panelling in real-life conditions is not geometrically perfect, nor does it consist of perfect,
homogeneous material. Instead, panelling is susceptible to imperfections, including initial deflections,
residual stresses induced from welding, heat afflicted zones, corrosion, fatigue stresses and additional
loads beyond axial tension and compression. Each imperfection is considered in a different way
depending on the load-shortening curve model used and on the hull being analysed. Gordos model
considers residual stresses and initial deflections in his model by applying it as a reduction factor,
which reduces the ultimate load behaviour of the panel. Corrosion is taken as an effective reduction of
plate thickness, Rutherford and Caldwell (1990) consider a reduction of 0.1mm per year of service life
as an adequate allowance for steel vessels. Rutherford and Caldwell also considered corrosion to
affect both sides of a stiffener flange and hence applied the corrosion rate to both sides. Other effects
are not considered by Gordo and Guedes Soares, but can be assessed by finite element methods.
2.2

Hard Corners

Hard corners are located at the junction between major plates, Hu stating that it is thought
that the hard-corner element can fully withstand the load, that is to say, its load-end shortening curve
is the same as the stress strain curve of the elastic-perfectly plastic material. (2001). Hu later notes
that the plates comprising the corner are susceptible to buckling, and accounted for this with an
analytical equation. The amount of plate material that constitutes a hard corner varies with author, Hu
suggesting that a hard corner is simply half stiffener spacing from the corner, however Benson (2013)
considers the panel up to 30 plate thicknesses away from the junction to be a hard corner with an
elastic-perfectly plastic behaviour in compression. Bensons interpretation of what constitutes a hard
corner as well as his schema for element subdivision is shown in Figure 7.

FIELD Jarryd Ultimate strength of FPSOs

Figure 7 Element subdivision with hard corners (Benson et al., 2013)

Validation Results

For all programs a validation case was selected to confirm the program correctly predicts failure
and behaves as expected. The validation cases were selected by reviewing and selecting from case
studies that other authors have used, providing a comparable base line to compare results.
3.1

Panel ultimate strain validation

To show the validity of his methods, Hughes performed a number of comparisons with
experimental data. For his ultimate strain calculations, Hughes applied his method to a number of
experiments conducted on stiffened panels by Murray and Michelutti (1977). Murray and Micheluttis
experiments were conducted on panelling intended for box girder bridges, however the panelling
closely resembles panelling used for vessel hulls and therefore is comparable. The panels themselves
had the same nominal dimensions and stiffener shape, shown in Table 1. Hughes found that his
results correlated with Murray and Micheluttis results, with error of up to 16%.

Table 1 Murray and Michelutti panel properties

Panel length
Plate width
Plate thickness
Web height
Web thickness
Flange width
Flangth thickness
Plate Elastic Modulus
Stiffener elastic modulus

3.2 m, 4.95 m (Panel A6)

0.533 m
9.7 mm
0.152 m
7.3 mm
28.6 mm
15.9 mm
200 GPa
200 GPa

FIELD Jarryd Ultimate strength of FPSOs

Table 2 Results from Hughes panel ultimate strain method

Panel
Name
L
L1
Y
Z
N
J
H
A6
Q
A5
A4
A3
A2
A1
P

Panel yield
stress
(MPa)
3.15E+08
3.96E+08
3.63E+08
3.67E+08
3.32E+08
3.70E+08
3.78E+08
3.68E+08
3.18E+08
3.24E+08
3.72E+08
3.70E+08
3.83E+08
3.78E+08
3.24E+08

Stiffener
yield stress
(MPa)
2.70E+08
3.79E+08
3.78E+08
3.70E+08
3.96E+08
3.81E+08
3.89E+08
3.83E+08
3.97E+08
3.85E+08
3.61E+08
3.38E+08
3.54E+08
3.71E+08
3.69E+08

Experimental
0
0
0.17
0.33
0.53
0.63
0.66
0.41
0.51
0.5
0.42
0.38
0.37
0.25
0

Hughes
Ultimate stress to
Yield stress ratio
0
0
0.15
0.31
0.51
0.64
0.59
0.39
0.51
0.46
0.38
0.33
0.31
0.24
0
Average error:

Error
0%
0%
12%
6%
4%
2%
11%
5%
0%
8%
10%
13%
16%
4%
0%
7%

Presented
Ultimate stress to
Yield stress ratio
0.00
0.05
0.18
0.39
0.56
0.66
0.65
0.44
0.51
0.44
0.40
0.38
0.37
0.35
0.20
Average error:

Error
0%
5%
3%
19%
6%
5%
1%
7%
1%
12%
5%
1%
1%
42%
20%
9%

Table 2 shows results from Hughes method to calculate panel ultimate strain. Each panels
ultimate buckling stress to yield stress ratio is compared to Hughes results and to experimental data.
The results for the presented method lie within an expected range of error for numerical results.
Notable outliers include panels Z, A5 and A1, with A1 showing 42% error. The variation in Panels
A1 is attributed to the program identifying the failure mode as Mode II, a buckling plate failure,
instead of the expected result of Mode III, the simultaneous failure of plate buckling and stiffener
yielding. Mode III is a rare case of failure, and it only occurs when the moment applied to the plate
approaches the plastic moment.
3.2

Load shortening curves validation

0.8

Normalised stress

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4

Gordo results

0.3

Presented results

0.2
0.1
0

1
2
Normalised strain

Figure 8 Load-shortening curve of compressive panel in Dowlings model 2 box

girder

FIELD Jarryd Ultimate strength of FPSOs

Gordo and Guedes Soares presented a load shortening curve for a panel, which is used to analyse
the ultimate strength of Dowlings box girder 2. This panel comprised part of the compressive flange
of the box girder, and was considered without any residual stresses or initial deflections. As this is a
major component of the box girder, this panel will contribute the most to the ultimate strength of the
girder. Panel dimensions are as shown below in Table 3. From Figure 8, the model presented is a near
exact match with the existing results, which indicates that the method is correctly implemented for
this case a single panel undergoing beam-column failure. This analysis however does not fully
confirm the implementation of this model to be exact, as tripping has not been assessed.

Table 3 Dowlings box girder #2 compressive flange panel properties

Panel length
Plate width
Plate thickness
Web height
Web thickness
Flange width
Flange thickness
Plate elastic modulus
Plate yield stress
Stiffener elastic modulus
Stiffener yield stress

3.3

787.4 mm
243.84 mm
4.88 mm
50.8 mm
4.8 mm
15.9 mm
4.8 mm
208.5 GPa
297.3 MPa
191.5 GPa
276.2 MPa

Moment curvature relationship and ultimate strength validation

Gordo and Guedes Soares performed an analysis on a box girder which was tested to destruction
by Dowling (1973) . The box girder was divided into 18 panels for analysis; 8 identical panels in the
tension and compression flange, 4 panels with two additional plate sections for the web and 4 hard
corners. All panels were assessed with Gordos model, with the exception of the hard corners which
were treated as elastic-perfectly plastic elements. A cross section of Dowlings box girder #2 is shown
in Figure 9 below. Dimensions for the primary panel in the compressive and tensile flanges can be
found in Table 3 above, while dimensions for other panels can be found in relevant literature.

Figure 9 Cross section of Dowlings box girder (Gordo and Guedes Soares, 1996)

FIELD Jarryd Ultimate strength of FPSOs

2.00E+09
1.80E+09
1.60E+09

Moment (Nmm)

1.40E+09
1.20E+09

Presented results
Gordo, 1996

1.00E+09
Dowling, 1973
8.00E+08
6.00E+08

Presented Hughes
estimate

4.00E+08

Hughes estimate

2.00E+08

0.00E+00
0.00E+00 1.00E-06 2.00E-06 3.00E-06 4.00E-06 5.00E-06
Curvature (1/mm)

Figure 10 Moment-curvature relationship of Dowlings box girder #2. Shown are

Dowlings experimental, Gordos analytical, Hughes estimate and the presented
results for both Smiths method and Hughes method estimate.
Figure 10 shows experimental results, Gordos analytical results and the presented results. The
presented results show a clear 11% increase at the ultimate strength when compared to Gordos data.
This model only included panels without residual stresses or initial deflections, while Gordos panel
data does account for these imperfections, which is the expected cause of this discrepancy. Despite
this, the data follows the same behaviour of what is expected. Both the presented and Gordos results
deviate from the results presented by Dowling, of particular note is the gradient pre-buckling. This
suggests that Gordos load-shortening curve model is not adequately representing a panel in the
elastic compression region of a curve. Hughes estimate for ultimate strength is also shown. The
estimate predicts ultimate strength to be approximately 1.3 109 Nmm at a curvature of 2.7 10-6
1/mm. As shown in Figure 10, this corresponds approximately with the ultimate strength with an error
of 25% when compared to Dowlings values. When compared to Hughes estimate, the error is 16%.

Case study

With the lack of an FPSO cross section, VLCC Energy concentration presents an opportunity to
analyse a vessel with similar characteristics. Energy concentration was a crude carrier which broke its
back in Rotterdam in 1980 and has been analysed in detail since by multiple authors, such as
Rutherford and Caldwell. Rutherford and Caldwell performed a direct comparison between Smiths
method and the failure strength of the VLCC Energy Concentration determined by analysis of the still
water bending moment. Rutherford discussed the vessel and the circumstances that lead to its failure.
He also discussed Smiths method for ultimate strength analysis in more detail and made allowances
for other loads which would have contributed to the failure bending moment.
Figure 11 shows a comparison between VLCC Energy Concentration and an FPSO cross section.
While the FSPO is double bottomed, the VLCC provides a reasonable comparison. Both hulls exhibit
similar shapes, with comparable block coefficients (0.731 for the VLCC vs. 0.816 for the FPSO
shown in Figure 11). Both cross sections exhibit similarities, even while considering the presence of

FIELD Jarryd Ultimate strength of FPSOs

the double bottom on the FPSO. Finally, both cross sections have a large amount of effective panels,
which indicates that Smiths method is a suitable method for analysing ultimate strength.

Figure 11 Comparison of VLCC Energy Concentration (Rutherford and Caldwell,

1990) and FPSO (Sun and Bai, 2003) cross sections
Rutherford found that the result generated by the theoretical procedure was within 0.5% of the
bending moment which caused the ship to fail. His allowances for corrosion was generous compared
to the reported corrosion on the vessel but were justified as a global reduction in plate thickness. The
reduction in plate thickness was applied as a reduction of 0.1mm per year, applied once to plating but
twice to stiffeners as corrosion would occur on both sides.
Gordo and Guedes Soares found the hogging failure moment found to be the same in both cases.
The sagging failure moment found by Gordo and Guedes Soares was 5% different to that of
Rutherford, attributed to different methods for finding the tripping failure stress. Gordo and Guedes
Soares also provide analysis for corroded panels, applying a corrosion factor to afflicted elements by a
reduction in effective thickness. They found a 1% uniform reduction in plate thickness resulted in a
1.3% reduction in ultimate moment.

FIELD Jarryd Ultimate strength of FPSOs

2.50E+13

2.00E+13

1.50E+13

Moment applied on hull (Nmm)

1.00E+13

5.00E+12
Gordo results
0.00E+00
-6.00E-07 -4.00E-07 -2.00E-07 0.00E+00 2.00E-07 4.00E-07 6.00E-07 8.00E-07

No corrosion allowance
Corrosion allowance

-5.00E+12

-1.00E+13

-1.50E+13

-2.00E+13

-2.50E+13
Curvature (1/mm)

Figure 12 Moment-curvature relationship of Energy concentration (positive

curvature is hogging)
The results presented in Figure 12 show that for the region governed by panel elastic compressive
response that all sets of data show a direct correlation. The differences arise at and after the maximum
strength has been sustained. For hogging, results with the corrosion allowance correlate well with the
ultimate strength, however post-buckling load shedding is not as severe. This may be related to hard
corner element behaviour, the treatment of which Gordo never specified. For sagging behaviour,
ultimate strength is overpredicted. It is possible this too is related to hard corner element behaviour.

Conclusion

Ultimate strength in FPSOs is an issue that needs to be considered for their entire operational
lives. Two methods for determining hull ultimate strength were selected, a variant of Smiths method
implemented by Chen and a method derived from Smiths developed by Hughes. These methods were
selected because of the advantages they present over finite element methods lower computational
time, greatly simplified set-up and lower software costs. These methods were programmed in
MATLAB with methods verified against past experimental data and previous work. Verification cases
selected were panel ultimate strength experiments conducted by Murray and Michelutti, a loadshortening curve generated by Gordo, ultimate strength of a box girder tested to destruction by
Dowling and ultimate strength of VLCC Energy Concentration.
Hughes method for predicting panel ultimate strain shows that results generated were within the
same margins of error as those found by Hughes with the exception of one result, a rare case of
extreme failure. Hughes method for calculating ultimate strength was found to have an error of 24%,
a large margin of error. Comparisons made with Gordos load-shortening curve suggest that Gordos
method is implemented correctly without residual stresses or other imperfections for beam-column
failure. The importance of residual stresses and imperfections is highlighted with a comparison to the
moment-curvature curve found experimentally by Dowling, results presented show an 11% increase

FIELD Jarryd Ultimate strength of FPSOs

in ultimate strength with no imperfections, compared to Gordos results which included
imperfections. Finally, the viability of using such methods on a large hull cross section was
investigated. While strong correlation was found with results in the elastic response region, results
overpredict post-buckling behaviour. The cause remains unknown, but may be related to the
implementation and load-shortening behaviour of hard corners.

Future recommendations

The following issues should be investigated to improve the accuracy of methods proposed above.
A procedure for generating reliable load-shortening curves with finite element software which can
account for imperfections and other non-axial loads would increase the accuracy of results, with a cost
to computational speed. Hard corners should be reviewed to determine their behaviour when under
compressive axial loadings, along with a method to determine to what extent an element in a cross
section is a hard corner. The use of elastic-perfectly plastic stress strain curves to represent elements
in tension should be reviewed, as this is at best a conservative estimate.

References

BENSON, S., DOWNES, J. & DOW, R. S. 2013. Compartment level progressive

collapse analysis of lightweight ship structures. Marine Structures, 31, 44-62.
CALDWELL, J. B. 1965. Ultimate Longitudinal Strength. Trans.RINA, 107, 411-418.
CHAKRABARTI, S. 2005. Handbook of Offshore Engineering (2-volume set),
Elsevier Science.
CHEN, N.-Z. & GUEDES SOARES, C. 2008. Ultimate longitudinal strength of ship
hulls of composite materials. Journal of Ship Research, 52, 184-193.
DOWLING, P., CHATTERJEE, S., FRIEZE, P. & MOOLANI, F. Experimental and
predicted collapse behaviour of rectangular steel box girders. Proc., Int. Conf.
on Steel Box Girder Bridges, 1973. Institution of Civil Engineers, London, 7794.
GORDO, J. M. & GUEDES SOARES, C. 1993. Approximate load shortening curves
for stiffened plates under uniaxial compression. In: FAULKNER, D.,
COWLING, M. J., INCECIK, A. & DAS, P. K. (eds.) Integrity of Offshore
Structures 5. Glasgow: EMAS Publishing.
GORDO, J. M. & GUEDES SOARES, C. 1996. Approximate method to evaluate the
hull girder collapse strength. Marine Structures, 9, 449-470.
GORDO, J. M., GUEDES SOARES, C. & FAULKNER, D. 1996. Approximate
Assessment of the Ultimate Longitudinal Strength of the Hull Girder. Journal
of Ship Research, 40, 60-69.
HU, Y., ZHANG, A. & SUN, J. 2001. Analysis on the ultimate longitudinal strength
of a bulk carrier by using a simplified method. Marine Structures, 14, 311-330.

FIELD Jarryd Ultimate strength of FPSOs

HUGHES, O. F. 1983. Ship structural design: a rationally-based, computer-aided,

optimization approach, Wiley.
MURRAY, N. W. & MICHELUTTI, W. 1977. The Collapse Behaviour of Stiffened
Plates under Combined Axial and Bending Loads. Australasian Conference on
the Mechanics of Structures and Materials. University of Canterbury,
Christchurch.
RUTHERFORD, S. E. & CALDWELL, J. B. 1990. Ultimate Longitudinal Strength of
Ships-A Case Study. SNAME, 98, 441-471.
SMITH, C. S. Influence of Local Compressive Failure on Ulitmate Longitudinal
Strength of a Ship's Hull. International Symposium on Practical Design in
Shipbuilding (PRADIS), 1977 Tokyo. 73-79.
SUN, H.-H. & BAI, Y. 2003. Time-variant reliability assessment of FPSO hull
girders. Marine Structures, 16, 219-253.